The Fall of David Cameron

Deepak
Tripathi is
a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the Royal Asiatic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Prime
Minister Harold Wilson, who dominated British politics in the 1960s,
once said that a week is a long time in politics. The meaning of his
famous remark is that political fortunes can change dramatically in a
short time. Just one year after winning the May 2015 general election
against the odds, Prime Minister David Cameron has suffered a
spectacular fall. He is out of power and out of politics, having
stood down as an MP with immediate effect on September 12, less than
three months after he resigned as prime minister.

Cameron
had been leader of the Conservative Party for ten years, and prime
minister in coalition with the Liberal Democrats for six. When he
appeared to be at the pinnacle of his career, having won a majority
in the May 2015 general election, his luck ran out. Now, he is
yesterday’s man. Much of Cameron’s legacy is being dismantled by
his successor Theresa May. His record in office is under critical
examination. His admirers are dwindling.

Two
days after Cameron’s resignation as an MP, the House of Commons
Foreign Affairs Committee published a highly critical report. It held
him “ultimately responsible” for the collapse of the Libyan
state, and the rise of ISIS after the Anglo-French military campaign
with American help in 2011.

Remember,
then Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicolas Sarkozy were
leading champions of military action in Libya, citing the principle
of “responsibility to protect” – a principle endorsed by the UN
Security Council as a means of last resort to prevent war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Amid determined public calls for a
western-led campaign against the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, a
reluctant President Obama gave in. The result was a NATO campaign
which led to the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi. Obama regrets the
bungled Libyan intervention now.

The
parliamentary committee’s report said the government of Prime
Minister Cameron neither had accurate intelligence nor a coherent
strategy for Libya after Gaddafi’s removal. The result, according
to the report, was political and economic collapse, tribal warfare,
widespread human rights abuses and the rise of ISIS in North Africa,
fuelled by weapons which the Libyan army abandoned.

The
initial objective of the Libyan campaign was limited to protect the
besieged civilian population in Benghazi, protesting against
Gaddafi’s rule when the Arab Spring swept across the region. After
that objective was secured within a short time, the Foreign Affairs
Committee’s report concluded, the United Kingdom “drifted into a
policy of regime change by military means.” It became “exclusively
focused on military intervention.” The decision was taken in
France; the United Kingdom simply followed.

Insofar
as Britain’s recent military interventions abroad are concerned,
there are parallels between David Cameron and Tony Blair, prime
minister from 1997 to 2007. Blair was heavily criticized in the
Chilcot Inquiry, published in July 2016, for acquiescing with
President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003. The parliamentary
inquiry into Libya found that David Cameron went along with the
decision-making in France, with calamitous results.

Tony
Blair, with George W. Bush, must bear the ultimate responsibility for
the collapse of the Iraqi state, the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq
and more recently ISIS. Likewise, the parliamentary inquiry, in its
final analysis, held David Cameron responsible for the disintegration
of Libya. The policy created conditions for the birth of ISIS in
North Africa, and for massive waves of refugees arriving in Europe.
UK actions in Libya were described as “ill-conceived” by the
inquiry chairman Crispin Blunt, a member of Cameron’s own
Conservative Party. Cameron himself refused to testify. He said he
was too busy to appear.

But
the reason for Cameron’s fall from power was not Libya. He was a
tactical, rather than visionary, leader, not able to stand up to
dissenters in his party. He failed to secure a majority in the 2010
general election, and had to form a coalition government with the
Liberal Democratic Party. In 2015, he won by a small majority in
parliament on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on whether the
United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

His
pledge was meant to placate the anti-EU faction in his Conservative
party, and to counter the UK Independence Party (UKIP) led by Nigel
Farage, a vehemently anti-EU and anti-immigration politician.
Cameron’s lurch to the right on issues such as immigration, and his
attempts to secure concessions from the EU, were tactics to maintain
control, win the referendum, and stay in the European Union. He was
over-confident that he was a winner, and would prevail in the
referendum. It proved costly.

Cameron’s
predecessors, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, had resisted calls
for a referendum. In the 1980s, Thatcher’s frequent public
arguments with the rest of the European Union over British
contributions, and her assertions of national sovereignty, concealed
divisions in the Conservative Party. Her successor John Major
(1990-1997) often clashed with party rebels over EU membership, but
would not contemplate another referendum. Major insisted that the
membership issue was resolved in the 1973 vote. Cameron lost the
gamble, because what was meant to be an electoral exercise about the
EU became a vote on a wide range of policies under his prime
ministership.

Now
that Cameron has left the political scene, it is left up to Prime
Minister Theresa May to manage the aftermath. But the recent history
of the United Kingdom demonstrates that when a prime minister has
dominated national politics for years, the tenure of their successor
is difficult and short. James Callaghan (1976–1979) survived in
office for three years before his defeat by Margaret Thatcher. John
Major had a difficult time in office before his defeat in 1997 by
Tony Blair’s Labour Party. And after Blair’s resignation, Prime
Minister Gordon Brown managed to remain in office for three years
before he was defeated in 2010.

The
next general election in the United Kingdom is due in 2020. Whether
Prime Minister Theresa May’s government can last until then is an
open question.